[#3358] Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare) — Patrick May <patrick@...>
Hello,
8 messages
2004/09/09
[#3359] Re: Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare)
— Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
2004/09/09
Patrick May (patrick@hexane.org) wrote:
[#3419] Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
Hello list,
19 messages
2004/09/17
[#3422] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3423] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:01, ts wrote:
[#3424] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3425] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:37, ts wrote:
[#3426] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3428] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:05, ts wrote:
[#3429] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3430] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:30, ts wrote:
[#3431] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3432] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3433] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
There is a minor flaw in my analysis toward the end; ignore previous email
[#3434] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3437] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2004/09/17
Hi,
Re: "destructiveness" of delete
From:
matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date:
2004-09-02 01:03:51 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3339
Hi,
In message "Re: "destructiveness" of delete"
on 04/09/01, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
|I don't either, but I think the question of how "delete" relates to
|"delete!" is separate. I would favor unification, not because strings
|should be similar to arrays but to avoid having two conflicting
|rationales (even if one of them has been forgotten :-) for how
|"delete[!]" relates to its receiver.
There were no big reason than "they had different origins" as I stated
before. Probably it was wrong naming, I admit. I'm afraid that
unifiying behavior (to either direction) would cause serious problems
more than it would solve. Any realistic idea, anyone?
matz.